It's just the beginning of what's to come. American citizens are not going to keep letting their government treat them like crap and turn their country into a police state. Too many guns in private hands and they will push back when the government tries to take away their constitutional rights. 2020 two civil wars will lead to the break up of the US
Armed Militia standoff continues, calling themselves 'Citizens for Constitutional Freedom' [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpuFwBwSnxI[/youtube]
Mainstream media have pulled out the Indigenous Card: http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...m/news-story/b9fe7993dfa0132d0d47b698d0e79d1c Someone forgot to mention to the the Indigenous spokesperson that her tribe was originally a nomadic people and as a result they didn't own any land. Apart from an exchange of deed, occupation and utilisation of land is the only way a person can own a property. Passing through a space whilst extracting minimal resources is not occupation and utilisation.
I would argue that regular/semi-regular foraging (or other use) gives someone a reasonable partial claim if even if not pure ownership. Either way I thought the militia dudes were arguing that the Federal Government has no true constitutional right to control the activities on that land?
Communal ownership maybe, but there certainly would never have been any private ownership of land, which is the centrepoint of our philosophy. The only private property they would have possesed would have been their tools and what little possessions they kept to provide protection from the environment. Goes back to the days of Madison and Franklin and their fears of Federalism. If jackson or Lincoln were in charge today they would order the army in to destroy the militia stronghold. :/
Typically it is communal ownership in such societies, but it is ownership nonetheless. The English right-of-ways are a good example of valid communal ownership alongside private ownership. Overall the problem with communal ownership is that it is generally inflexible to changing circumstances (ie if a tribe gets smaller then the amount of required access to resources should also fall) and that it typically gets extended beyond being access to life sustaining resources to pretty much all property acquired by individual members of the community which is where it becomes invalid. In contrast, the number and extent of the English right-of-ways can decline or increase as people stop using them or create new ones and they aren't preventing people from claiming land as private property alongside the communal property.
Communal ownership of land is indefensible via logical reasoning. If ownership is granted via circumstance, then as a tribe's needs become greater, they are rightfully allowed to trespass on their neighbour's communally owned land in order to satisfy their own needs. Conversely, if their needs decline whilst those of their neighbours become greater, then their neighbours are rightfully allowed to dispossess them of their communally owned land. Such a scenario means that in essence, no one owns the land and no one can claim ownership as a defense or to argue against intrusion, as it always comes down to whose needs are perceived, or argued to be greater.* This is the situation that occurred with the Indian communities in question. Their technologically inefficient and nomadic lifestyle put them under pressure when a neighbouring group expanded in order to satisfy its needs. The only way to avoid such conflict is by recognising private ownership of land is the only valid form of ownership. *Edited
Sorry I should have been clearer. Yes, it is the individuals within the community that are either using or not using the resources on the land on a regular or semi-regular basis. It is through a social norm that the property rights are vested in the community. Hence a group of people can send out different hunters/gatherers each time but communally share the spoils (by whatever mechanism they choose) via a social norm. That the same group is continually accessing the resources means that the group has a valid property rights claim. It's like individuals within a club being able to access club resources. How membership to the group is determined and what happens on exit is another issue (one that tribal communities typically do horrendously badly on). The only way the group can expand their area of influence is for the individuals within the group to physically access new areas. As you pointed out however, they can only do so if the new area is unclaimed (or amenable to a new overlapping claim). Conversely if the area of influence declines then the property claim is essentially abandoned (with social norms determining how long a period of time is reasonable - eg from memory it is seven years of non-use for a right-of-way to be deemed abandoned).
https://www.rt.com/usa/330249-ammon-bundy--arrest/ one of the bundy brothers shot and wounded, another unidentified militia man shot and killed. and a whole bunch arrested. not sure if there are still any left at the wildlife center. news is just coming out
